[talmand]

I imagine that when you have generations of people that have been told all their lives by authority that "this" is bad, it's rather difficult to change a mindset to "this" isn't so bad now and we wish to raise revenues with it.

If a fiscal conservative isn't complaining about the cost of the drug war at this point, I would conclude they aren't a fiscal conservative.

[fredkbloggs]

Legalisation (we'll leave the exact definition unspecified here, because it doesn't matter) neither asks nor requires anyone to change their opinions of recreational drug use. Regulating and taxing an activity do not constitute an endorsement of it; more fundamentally, this attitude inverts the foundation of American law by asserting that only those things of which the government approves should be lawful. The legalisation argument is not that recreational drug use is "not so bad". It is that the marginal harm caused by prohibition (by a large number of vectors) is greater than the marginal harm it prevents (the harm done to or by some number of people not using recreational drugs who otherwise would). The reality is that every schoolchild has been repeatedly informed of the effects and risks of the various recreational drugs on the market. It is literally easier to graduate high school illiterate than to avoid learning about recreational drugs. Those who choose to become first-time users despite prohibition do so as informed citizens. There is no evidence that prohibition discourages any great number of would-be users, though it would be naive to insist that it discourages no one. Neither do economic incentives: witness the millions of dollars lost every year by professional athletes who are penalised for violations of their employers' anti-drug policies, which are stricter even than legal prohibition. The objective is not, and should not be, to encourage recreational drug use but to limit the harm done to and by recreational drug users, and to limit their number through education and, where appropriate, rehabilitation of addicts. Neither does legalisation imply that recreational drug users who commit crimes or do other harm while under the influence will not be held responsible for their actions. Consuming alcohol is legal; drunk driving is not. Being high is no excuse for crime today and would be no excuse under the policy regime of legalisation.

Accepting legalisation as a superior alternative simply doesn't require the mental leap you're suggesting. It should appeal to most people, regardless of their overall political views.

[talmand]

I appreciate the detailed statement you just made and cannot disagree, but I just can't say that most people would hold to that viewpoint even if you think they should.

But I think your point is a slightly different issue than the problem I was attempting to describe based on the original question.